Statutory recruitment rules prevail over executive instructions regarding promotion eligibility criteria.

JUDGMENT :

PRATEEK JALAN, J.

1. The petitioner is an employee of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi [“DRT”]. He is currently serving as the Court Master in the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [“DRAT”], but the present petition concerns his promotion from the post of Court Master, DRT-III, New Delhi to the post of Recovery Inspector, DRT-III, New Delhi.

2. The petitioner first joined government service as a Lower Division Clerk in the Staff Selection Board on 07.03.1996. He was deputed to the DRT in the same post with effect from 01.04.2003, and was absorbed in the DRT on 26.10.2005. He was subsequently promoted as Court Master, DRT (ad-hoc), and was regularised in the post of Court Master with effect from 01.03.2010.

3. Pursuant to an advertisement issued in December 2015, the petitioner applied for ad-hoc promotion on deputation to the post of Recovery Inspector in DRT-III, New Delhi. He was admittedly short of the required eligibility of eight years’ service as Court Master and was therefore not considered. However, upon completion of eight years’ service as Court Master, he again requested the Presiding Officer, DRT- III, New Delhi, by a letter dated 28.02.2018, to expedite consideration of his application for promotion. The DRT took the decision that the eligibility condition required ten years’ service as a Court Master, and the petitioner was therefore ineligible.

4. The petitioner first approached this Court in W.P.(C) 5716/2018 against the aforesaid decision. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 25.05.2018, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation.

5. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner made a representation on 05.06.2018. The representation has been answered against the petitioner by the impugned order dated 24.12.2018, which reads as follows:

“I am directed to inform you that in the light of directions contained in the Order dated 25.05.2018 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (c) No. 5716/20108 titled “Dalip Kumar Vs Registrar, DRT-III, Delhi & Ors.”, your representation dated 05.06.2018 has been examined in consultation with the Cadre Controlling Authority-DRAT, Delhi and to say that even though there was no amendments carried out in the recruitment rules after the qualifying service period for the post of Recovery Inspector was increased from eight years to ten years non-amendment of Rules will not confer any right upon the employee, Shri Dalip Kumar to claim promotion on the basis of unamended recruitment rules. He has not completed ten years regular service in the pay grade of Rs. 2400/- and which has been made the necessary qualification pursuant to the recommendation of the 6^th Pay Commission and its acceptance by the Government and so he cannot be promoted at present. He will have to wait till he completes the minimum qualifying service of ten years from the date of his getting appointed in the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- and then only his can be considered.

This issue with the approval of competent authority.”

[Emphasis supplied.]

6. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Recovery Inspector, DRAT, by Office Order dated 31.08.2022, but his grievance is that he ought to have been considered for promotion upon completion of eight years’ regular service in the post of Court Master, which he completed on 01.03.2018.

7. I have heard Mr. Bheem Sain Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Jatin Teotia, learned counsel for the respondents.

8. The Recruitment Rules, as amended up to the year 2003, provided for two posts of Recovery Inspector in each DRT. The method of recruitment is by promotion/deputation, and the eligibility criteria, to the extent that they are relevant, provided for eligibility of Court Masters of DRT with eight years’ regular service.

9. It is undi